I Will Not Go Quietly!

stonebeard:

So you're saying that it's perfectly fine that a completely innocent man was shot in the back?  Please tell me that you are not rationalizing that way...

MTS:

I guess you haven't heard that, by every single counting method done after the Supreme Court's decision in Gore v. Florida - by nine different newspapers (of different political stripes), and dozens of independent firms and agencies - it was clear that, had the recount been permitted to proceed, Gore would have won Florida without question.  That is fact.  So I repeat my correct claim that the Supreme Court "coronated" (or, perhaps more appropriate to current events, "anointed") Bush as president.

And there was chicanery in the 2004 elections as well.  In that case, it was Ohio that was stolen by Bush via a number of outrageous, illegal tactics.  (See Mark Crispin Miller's article in the current issue of Harper's.)

Bush campaigned as a "uniter, not a divider," yet became a divider almost immediately upon taking office, and has become without question the most divisive president since Nixon.  He campaigned as a "compassionate conservative," but has fulfilled only the second part of that phrase.  He campaigned as a "listener," but listens to no one except his neocon cronies.  He didn't even listen to over30 million people in over 30 cities in 12 countries who protested simultaneously just prior to the invasion of Iraq: the largest protest against a single person in the history of the world!  As an aside, so divisive had he become by then that the protests included over 20,000 Jews and Palestinians marching arm in arm in Jerusalem to protest the planned invasion.

And here at home Bush and his neocon cronies, supported by the so-called "Christian Right" (which, like the Moral Majority before it, is neither), are slowly but surely shredding the Constitution, evoking "executive powers" above and beyond anything Nixon ever even dreamed of, and sending this country on the path toward a proto-totalitarian quasi-theocracy.

Yes, the "terrorists" have already won.  Except the terrorists were never Arab: they were right here under our noses.

Peace.

emdiar wrote: The big myth of course, is that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have one agenda, that being to undermine our so called democracy. This is what Bush would have us all believe. He (or rather "they" [neocons]) drone on about animals whose only desire is to make our lives hell out of pure spite. The Idealogues of which he speaks live not to impose islamic law on western countries, nor to kill infidels for sport. The truth is, they have a far clearer agenda than that. If you think the internal destruction of our civil rights is high on their list of objectives you are misguided. Rather, it is high on the lists of our own powermad leaders, and is nothing more than the byproduct of the bombings. No, only one thing causes a young idealistic and religious person to murder innocent civilians: revenge! Bush won't tell you that, because then he'd have to tell us just why these people feel so hard done by in the first place. I in no way condone any act of murder, but let's stop pretending they're acting out of some sort of psychopathic bloodlust, and that western states are pure as the driven snow. The USA and co have actively supported Isreal in its terrorist acts against Palestinian people. Face it, "our" hands are certainly not clean in this so called war. Oh, and DOCTOR, one more thing on racial profiling; one of the four London bombers was Jamaican.

I'd love to know what terrorist acts committed by the Israelis you are referring to.  Would it be the shooting into a car of a mother and her children, killing all occupants in the car?  No wait, the Israelis were the victims in that case and the Arabs the terrorists.  Could it be the bombing of synagogues that you refer to?  No again, that would be the Israelis as victims, the Arabs as the terrorists.  Hmmmmm.  What terrorist acts by Israelis could you possibly mean?

Let's just face it folks.  I have absolutely zero respect for these so-called people and even less concern for any "plight" which may have been inflicted upon them by the big bad whites and jews.  If I had my way, they would be excluded from the civilized parts of the world, and left to kill each other instead of us.  My opinion on this will not change.  I don't care about them, I don't want them breathing my air, boarding my plane, boarding my subway car, or in my country at all for that matter.  If they all killed each other off, it would be no great loss to the world as far as I'm concerned.  For some reason, Anakin Skywalker's line in Attack of the Clones seems appropriate here "They're animals, so I slaughtered them like animals."

Edited by The Doctor

James Lee wrote: marktheshark wrote: C'mon James! You know damn well Bush, Blair and Putin were fed bad intell on the WMDs. That's an enstablished fact. I don't know any such thing- to what fact are you referring? Bush said he had hard evidence of WMDs and an Iraqi plan against the US when all he had were rumors and inference. No court would convict someone on the evidence he had, even if all of it had been authentic. What we're doing now is continuing the execution even after the guilty verdict has been overturned. marktheshark wrote: My old man, a 30 yr CIA official, told me after the first WTC bombing before he passed away that if we had the intelligence capabilities we had during the Cuban missile crisis, the terrorists couldn't take a dump without us knowing about it. But unfortunately over the years the intelligence community has had their hands more and more tied. I've always envied people who consistently have a direct personal connection to whatever matter was being discussed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not actually calling shenanigans on you...but I hope if we're talking about the space program next, you won't happen to mention that your next-door neighbor is an astronaut... marktheshark wrote: And what do you want anyway? 365 elections a year?! You put to much stock in polls, my friend. It's the votes that count. Yeah, I know what you're going to say, "Like they were counted in Fla, huh?" and I'm not going to go into that! maani pretty much covered that. I don't personally care- I don't really trust the will of the people any more than I trust election machines owned by a candidate's family or business partner. But the political structure of the country was intended to serve the will of the people, not dictate it. Our soldiers will all tell you that they are fighting for Democracy...I really hope they win, because we ain't got it yet. BTW: is The Doctor a physician, a PhD, or just a fan of British sci-fi? He writes well enough to be a PhD- very few typos or grammatical errors in his posts. So how does an educated man come to the conclusion that practicality dictates genocide? Perhaps the liberals really ARE all namby-pamby escapists, Doc...but your real world sounds like one any reasonable person would want to escape. I'm reminded of another PhD from Heidelberg...articulate, vocally opposed to bourgeois intellectualism, and supportive of genocide. Do you also happen to be crippled in one foot and a frustrated poet? Perhaps you could substitute a quick overview of Israeli atrocities for another viewing of Episode II...the moral narrative of the trilogy seems to have escaped you anyway.

The Doctor is a fan of British sci-fi.  I have a JD though, the only doctorate for which you are not called Doctor.  And no, the moral narrative of the trilogy has not escaped me in any way, although I do understand many of the choices that Skywalker made and would have made some, not all, of the same choices.  No, no crippled foot here.  And I've never tried my hand at poetry.

Edited by The Doctor

^ First, let me say, that I do believe that most in the Arab world either are terrorists, potential terrorists, or support the terrorists.  I do not actually advocate genocide, I only advocate exclusion.  However, I have wearied of some of the nonsensical "namby-pamby," as you put it, posts, sticking up for these people.  So, I went the opposite extreme.  However, I do stand by my opinion that they should be excluded from civilized society and if they did actually manage to wipe themselves out, I can't imagine I would shed too many a tear for them.  I do not actually advocate active genocide on our part however.  And if the Arabs wanted to exclude caucasians from Arab lands, what do I care?  Have at it I say.  But they actually would like to wipe us from the face of the Earth, and so to continue to allow them in our society is not only stupid, it is morally reprehensible in my opinion.

tuxon wrote: The Doctor wrote: ^ First, let me say, that I do believe that most in the Arab world either are terrorists, potential terrorists, or support the terrorists.  Believing is not the same as knowing  I do not actually advocate genocide fine, especially the actually provides a great nuance , I only advocate exclusion.   However, I have wearied of some of the nonsensical "namby-pamby," as you put it, posts, sticking up for these people.  So, I went the opposite extreme.  to take an argument to the extreme, is fine with me, but the underlined word in bold caught my attention  However, I do stand by my opinion that they should be excluded from civilized society All arabs should be excluded, you are so right (winged that is)  and if they did actually manage to wipe themselves out, I can't imagine I would shed too many a tear for them.  I do not actually advocate active genocide on our part however. Inactive would be preferable I suppose?   And if the Arabs wanted to exclude caucasians from Arab lands, what do I care?  I don't want to be excluded from oil, I'll lose my job Have at it I say.  But they actually would like to wipe us from the face of the Earth, why would they want that? and who are they, the terrorist or the arabs, oh I forgot your first sentence, all arabs are terrorist, supprting terrorism or are potential terrorist. and so to continue to allow them in our society is not only stupid, it is morally reprehensible in my opinion. To allow you free speech is not only stupid, but moraly reprehensible in my opinion   summarising your post, All Arabs are terrorists, active genocide is not preferable, but an option, and you are a complete ignorant idiot

Tuxon...I refuse to argue with someone who is going to engage in personal attacks just because someone does not agree with your Pollyanna view of the world.  I will no longer read any of your posts.  You are almost as bad as gleam, except you didn't threaten to kick my ass.  Buh bye now.

Edited by The Doctor

All of the streams I have read on this kind of subject seems to indicate
that some people actually care about what happens but some seem to
want to stir the pot (I can't really tell half the time who that is).

This means that some of the arguments just become circular
as there was no intention of listening to anyone else, just the
submission of a point in order to keep the pot boiling.

There are established facts and authoritative research on at
least some of the issues we have been arguing about.

Maybe the question should be

If you are presented with 'bona-fide' research - witness statements
- 'the fact that the heads (senior members) of the London/UK Moslem community came out
publicly, together, and issued a fatwa (edict condemning) against such terrorist activites
and that a 20 year research project conducted from the US by one of the foremost experts
on the subject has concluded that the majority (conservative) Moslem community
were either outraged or disagreed with the methods of terrorists,
why wouldn't you listen to that.

I have been watching middle eastern politics for years and both sides try to point score
on one another - just like western politicians - however the game is much more deadly.
(There is an obvious advantage to the side that can gain the sympathy/support
of the world/publics awareness.) How then, can you get a truly objective opinion about
that, unless you have checked out your facts very thoroughly.

An example is the 'massacre' in Jenin, which it turns out, was no massacre (a tragedy yes) but a set up by Hamas to get the Israeli army to come in (the press had been alerted before hand to arrive strategically at the right time). There was no verification of the death toll except from 'Hamas eyewitnesses'. So the story was out and almost everyone believes it was a massacre and that the Israelis were responsible for it. Some news articles in London were comparing it to the 'Holocaust' but when presented later with the proof of what happened were 'unwilling' to retract their previous statements.

The real reason for being in Iraq, IMO, is different to the 'official' story we were given in the first
place. There is compelling evidence to suggest another reason other than WMDs. Oil, does it not, makes the world go round (economically). The Bush opposition is also going to push this wagon as hard as it can and people get caught in the middle of a web of intrigue. Unless we really check our facts out thoroughly about this, we just end up perpetuating a political line or social agenda of some institution. If we are too closely aligned with one of these institutions, we will obviously push that wagon gladly without to much concern for what the 'actual' truth is.

James Lee wrote: marktheshark wrote: C'mon James! You know damn well Bush, Blair and Putin were fed bad intell on the WMDs. That's an enstablished fact. I don't know any such thing- to what fact are you referring? Bush said he had hard evidence of WMDs and an Iraqi plan against the US when all he had were rumors and inference. No court would convict someone on the evidence he had, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">even if all of it had been authentic</span>. What we're doing now is continuing the execution even after the guilty verdict has been overturned. marktheshark wrote: My old man, a 30 yr CIA official, told me after the first WTC bombing before he passed away that if we had the intelligence capabilities we had during the Cuban missile crisis, the terrorists couldn't take a dump without us knowing about it. But unfortunately over the years the intelligence community has had their hands more and more tied. I've always envied people who consistently have a direct personal connection to whatever matter was being discussed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not actually calling shenanigans on you...but I hope if we're talking about the space program next, you won't happen to mention that your next-door neighbor is an astronaut... marktheshark wrote: And what do you want anyway? 365 elections a year?! You put to much stock in polls, my friend. It's the votes that count. Yeah, I know what you're going to say, "Like they were counted in Fla, huh?" and I'm not going to go into that! maani pretty much covered that. I don't personally care- I don't really trust the will of the people any more than I trust election machines owned by a candidate's family or business partner. But the political structure of the country was intended to serve the will of the people, not dictate it. Our soldiers will all tell you that they are fighting for Democracy...I really hope they win, because we ain't got it yet. BTW: is The Doctor a physician, a PhD, or just a fan of British sci-fi? He writes well enough to be a PhD- very few typos or grammatical errors in his posts. So how does an educated man come to the conclusion that practicality dictates genocide? Perhaps the liberals really ARE all namby-pamby escapists, Doc...but your real world sounds like one any reasonable person would want to escape. I'm reminded of another PhD from Heidelberg...articulate, vocally opposed to bourgeois intellectualism, and supportive of genocide. Do you also happen to be crippled in one foot and a frustrated poet? Perhaps you could substitute a quick overview of Israeli atrocities for another viewing of Episode II...the moral narrative of the trilogy seems to have escaped you anyway.

No shenanigans. I grew up in a DC suburb called Falls Church in Virginia. My dad worked at Langley as an analyst for 30 years. He worked for pretty much every CIA director up to Casey. I can't prove it to you so you'll just have to take my word for it. And the closest thing I ever came to knowing an astronaut was working with Buzz Aldren's son at a Washington think-tank after I got out of the service in the 80s and I haven't seen him since.

As for the bad intell, both Blair and Putin along with Bush confirmed that the intell they recieved on the WMDs was flawed. However they did come up with something that was right. Saddam was indeed shopping for either plutonium or uranium in, I believe Niger. This was confirmed by their government. I'm pretty sure on this, but don't hold me to it.

On the election bit, I pretty sure Maani is dead wrong on those independent recounts. I'll have to look it up.

Anyway, it's getting late. The lady is starting to eyeball me so I'm out of here. You have a good one my friend.

barbs wrote: maani wrote:   Yes, the "terrorists" have already won.  Except the terrorists were never Arab: they were right here under our noses. Peace. Maani, I am not sure why, maybe the thread is getting under your skin, but you went all the way through this post and presented a reasonable arguement and then said 'Except the terrorists were never Arab: they were right here under our noses.' Is not the reality that, there is good and bad in all people groups and that in your country, in my country, in Africa, in China or in the Arab world, there are people who choose, for whatever reason - power, money, religion, political ideologies - to further their cause by commiting acts which at their most extreme, are terrorist acts. The fact is that even the Islamic states admit they have a problem with fanatics and have started to look into their Islamic school systems to see who is teaching radical fundamentalism that exhorts violence. You will get alot further with your line of thinking, IMO, if you are willing to accept that there are terrorist groups outside of the USA and that some of these can be of Arab origin. Otherwise you are starting to sound like an old Mujahadeen friend of mine who kept telling me that 'America is Great Satan' and that ALL the problems of the world start and end there. Paradoxically, that is as egocentric as Neo-conservatism (IMO). Peace to you to.

America indeed has many problems, satrting with the Evangelical Republicans who seek to integrate Christianity with Government.

Despite America's problems, Maani's ceaseless and irrational America bashing wears very thin. 

NetsNJFan wrote: It funny I consider myself a fairly moderate democrat, especially on religious and environmental issues, but this board makes me want to register as a Republican in a week (my 18th birthday) more and more........ People in my class consider me very liberal, but you Europeans make me look like a Neo-Con. I hate President Bush and hate the war in Iraq, but not once have I thought that the 18 year olds in the U.S. Army are on the wrong side, fighting against terrorists in Iraq who are willing to kill their own children to get at our soldiers. And as for the searches on the subways, I'd be very very happy to be searched, to know that the NYPD is doing it's job and working to help keep the city safe.  The only way I would protest is if I was carrying an illegal substance, in which case I should be arrested anyway.  People on this board speak of totalitarian police states, and if the CIA was conducting the searches, I might be somewhat nervous, but it is the NYPD, normal, honest people, who are just doing their job, who aren't looking to impede anyone rights, they are just looking for anything suspicious.  Better someone gets illegally searched than people die in my opinion.

Actually, very few people consider me a liberal anymore (as you can probably imagine), but there was a time once long ago when I wore that mantle proudly.  As I matured (something some of the people on these boards could really afford to do), I realized the world was not all that rose-colored and that the liberal point of view had more flaws than positives.  One of the major problems with the liberal agenda that I see has to do with the fact that liberals are extremely interested in equality, which may not at first seem like such a bad thing.  However, instead of bringing about equality by bringing those at the bottom rungs of society up, they try to push the higher rungs of society down.  One only need to look at the feminist agenda and the likes of the racial activists for proof of that.  Yet, by default I am still a democrat and really dislike Bush myself (I'm a democrat only because there is no real libertarian presence in the U.S., my dislike of Bush goes a bit further). 

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.  One of the problems I have with most of these posters (or is that poseurs?) is that to them American lives are apparently very cheap when contrasted with the much more important rights of the Arab community.  How dare we as Americans value our lives over the "rights" of a particular group, most of which are not even citizens of this country.  We are somehow supposed to value their rights to be free from hassle over our right to live.  But I guess in Europe, American lives aren't worth much.  Great to know who your friends are.  Of course, there are some in our very own country who care less about the rights of Americans to live than of the rights of Arabs to be hassle free (can you say ACLU...those people really irritate the sh** out of me).

I tell you, pretty much in line with what you said, the more I read the posts on this board the further to the right I shift.  I used to think that the U.S. should be concerned with the opinions of the international community.  Now I say, screw the international community before they screw us.  Apparently, I was born in the wrong culture.  I'd love to kill at will (you'd know this if you were ever in a car with me on the jersey turnpike) and be applauded for my efforts and have the international community stand behind me.  Damnit all to hell, I was born white and American.

 

 Hooray for Libertarianism!!!